W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > September 2011

Re: Comments on Target Audience - websites

From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:31:55 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
Message-ID: <21501017.1316709115623.JavaMail.root@wamui-junio.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>, public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Good point Shadi,

But I would look to ATAG and UAAG definitions as well.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
>Sent: Sep 22, 2011 12:12 PM
>To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Comments on Target Audience - websites
>
>I think WCAG 2.0 defines "web pages" but not "websites", which is why 
>attempted to provide a definition for our use:
>
>- A coherent collection of one or more related web pages that together 
>provide common use or functionality. It includes static web pages, 
>dynamically generated web pages (aka CMS-driven), and web applications 
>(aka client-side scripting).
>
>This definition will probably still need a lot more work (for example to 
>remove the recursion in it) but I hope it covers what we all mean.
>
>Best,
>   Shadi
>
>
>On 22.9.2011 17:41, Michael S Elledge wrote:
>> That's a good point, Katie. Thanks for pointing it out.
>>
>> Should we include "websites" in our glossary, then, in case other people
>> are confused?
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On 9/22/2011 11:27 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea wrote:
>>> Concerning the second issue "websites" to "websites and web-delivered
>>> applications".........
>>>
>>> I understand why this is being suggested, however, WCAG has a
>>> definition of "websites" that covers all kinds of web content. WCAG is
>>> web CONTENT accessibility guidelines, not the HTML accessibility
>>> guidelines.
>>>
>>> My 2 cents.............:-)
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Michael S Elledge<elledge@msu.edu>
>>>> Sent: Sep 22, 2011 11:06 AM
>>>> To: "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org"<public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
>>>> Subject: Comments on Target Audience
>>>>
>>>> Hi Everyone--
>>>>
>>>> We may want to either revise a current use scenario or add a new one
>>>> that includes "vendors or organizations wishing to evaluate websites"
>>>> since I don't see a reference that would relate to companies doing this
>>>> work.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I would propose that we revise wording from "websites" to
>>>> "websites and web-delivered applications" since part of WCAG 2.0's
>>>> intent is to be technology-agnostic, and websites may be interpreted as
>>>> html-based content.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>
>>> * katie *
>>>
>>> Katie Haritos-Shea
>>> Section 508 Technical Policy Analyst
>>>
>>> 703-371-5545
>>>
>>> People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
>>> but they will never forget how you made them feel.......
>>>
>>
>>
>
>-- 
>Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
>Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
>Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
>Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
>


* katie *

Katie Haritos-Shea 
Section 508 Technical Policy Analyst

703-371-5545

People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did, 
but they will never forget how you made them feel.......
Received on Thursday, 22 September 2011 16:32:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:12 GMT